As we’ve reported on in the past, Kansas City has rolled out the digital red carpet for Google: giving rights of way, prime office space, expedited permitting, fee waivers, and more. In a notable example, the city charged only $10 per pole for Google to string its cable on municipal utility poles—as opposed to the usual $18.95 per pole rate. But now, local incumbents Time Warner Cable and AT&T want to feel the love, too.

In recent months, according to the Wall Street Journal, the two big dogs of local telecom have been lobbying Kansas City to get a “parity agreement.”

"There are certain portions of the agreement between Google and Kansas City, Kan., that put them at a competitive advantage compared with not just us but also the other competitors in the field," said Alex Dudley, a Time Warner Cable spokesman, told the WSJ. "We're happy to compete with Google, but we'd just like an even playing field."

Of course, nothing stopped those incumbents from trying to innovate and disrupt the local market on their own. And that puts Kansas City—both in Kansas and Missouri—in a much better negotiating position. Time Warner Cable is currently in talks with Kansas City, Missouri, to provide more “community services” and service improvements in exchange for a fee refund and Google-style discounts.

135 Reader Comments

In a notable example, the Kansas city only charged $10 per pole for Google to string its cable on municipal utility poles—as opposed to the usual $18.95 per pole rate ... the two big dogs of local telecom have been lobbying Kansas City to get a “parity agreement.”

I don't know about Time Warner, but AT&T has no place to complain. AT&T has recieved billions, if not trillions in actual cash that was never paid back. Never mind the subsidies and access to public thoroughfares they get. If anyone has been coddled by government above everyone else, it's the telecom companies!

It seems as though KC might have inadvertently allowed Google some prime considerations in its quest for "ubiquitous wi-fi. while I am neither a fan of TWC or U-verse, I do believe that the negotiations are important to each entity to make sure that no unfair advantage is derived from this arrangement between KC ands the Google empire. I also think that Google should not receive too many perks as it will be mining the data of each individual either overtly or covertly.

If TWC and ATT are willing to set KC with the networking that Google is going to do to all homes and businesses then I say they should get the same treatment as google until then they can go screw themselves...

TWC and AT&T have free internet capability planned for pretty much the whole city? News to me! Level playing fields are good, let's hope that the incumbents level their own playing fields first. Otherwise it's not exactly fair that Google's trying to cover the whole city and allow for no-monthly-fee internet (at a bandwidth level that is in the mid- to high end depending on who your provider is), plus very high bandwidth on bundled packages (at a reasonable cost) while the incumbents can't be bothered to try and improve their offerings until some real competition arrives.

You want lower fees, incumbents? Get to increasing coverage and lowering prices (so everyone in the city has the ability to afford your offerings).

Here's a concept: if they start offering "basic" (but excellent) internet connection to everyone for merely the connection fee, maybe the municipalities might be more willing to work with them. But if, instead, you are manipulating your monopoly to squeeze every last drop out of your subscribers and the municipalities; perhaps you shouldn't be surprised to when they respond in kind.

Here is an idea, go to the #2 town that Google passed over when choosing Kansas City. Show them all the cool sh*t going on in KC, and get your Fiber-style deal there. How does that not make more sense? Go somewhere else and have a better chance without having to compete with Google or lets just be a sour-puss and try to put a wrench in the works.

Let's guess that Time-Warner's on-the-street "community" effort is to bring free WiFi to the area.... for "paying" customers... Wait for it... it is the type of "innovation" Time Warner knows how to do.

In a notable example, the Kansas city only charged $10 per pole for Google to string its cable on municipal utility poles—as opposed to the usual $18.95 per pole rate.

I had to read this article a couple times as something didn't quite click and it was bothering me. Then it hit me, what it AT&T talking about and that the above is kind of a bad example. AT&T is already in the city, has already established their infrastructure, and more than likely is not going to restring anything. All they want is reduced costs and tax breaks so they can further capitalize on an investment that they probably don't plan on much upgrading since fiber will completely outpace them. Now if they want said deal to upgrade to fiber and offer Kansas City what Google is offering, that's different, but AT&T has had a long track history of making promises in kind consideration of tax breaks and cash, and then not even attempting to follow through.

As a customer of time warner cable in NYC I have NO love lost for this company or AT&T for that matter. Time Warner has exclusive monopoly in certain areas which basically translates to sh!tty service. After all they know that the consumer has no other choice but to stay with them. So to put long story short "F*CK'em"

On the one hand screw the telecoms. On the other, if they want to string fiber with the same benefits Google recieved and compete with Google on price and service, let them. But no way in hell should they see any special incentivies or fees related to standard Cable/DSL service.

They want lower rates on their pole rates. Not that they will put up 1gbs service. The part of the negotiation was KC wanted something from Google and they provide it. I'm sure if you were to guarantee a rollout of 1 gps service, they might cut you a break also.

But you want to sit on your hands and expect preferential treatment because it is waaaahhhh unfair, what does the people of KC get for your discount? Same crappy service?

If TWC and ATT are willing to set KC with the networking that Google is going to do to all homes and businesses then I say they should get the same treatment as google until then they can go screw themselves...

Why should the others be required to wire everybody when google isn't?

They want lower rates on their pole rates. Not that they will put up 1gbs service. The part of the negotiation was KC wanted something from Google and they provide it. I'm sure if you were to guarantee a rollout of 1 gps service, they might cut you a break also.

But you want to sit on your hands and expect preferential treatment because it is waaaahhhh unfair, what does the people of KC get for your discount? Same crappy service?

It doesn't matter what the hell you're rolling out it isn't the place of the municipality to offer sweetheart deals to one company without offering them to the other. This is the same damn crony capitalism that resulted in monopolies in many cities in the first place.

I generally lean conservative, but there are really days that make me think that socialized telecom isn't such a bad idea. Usually those days coincide with AT&T, Verizon, TWC, or Comcast whining about something like this.

They want lower rates on their pole rates. Not that they will put up 1gbs service. The part of the negotiation was KC wanted something from Google and they provide it. I'm sure if you were to guarantee a rollout of 1 gps service, they might cut you a break also.

But you want to sit on your hands and expect preferential treatment because it is waaaahhhh unfair, what does the people of KC get for your discount? Same crappy service?

It doesn't matter what the hell you're rolling out it isn't the place of the municipality to offer sweetheart deals to one company without offering them to the other. This is the same damn crony capitalism that resulted in monopolies in many cities in the first place.

Unless I am mistaken, these companies never even came looking to roll out 1gbs fiber previously. They were happy to extort their customers for some of highest prices and shittiest speeds in the first world for years - AND they did receive handouts from the government to build out and upgrade their structure in the past - which they DID NOT use to the fullest extent.

TLDR - They done been getting their government monies, they just want moar.

They want lower rates on their pole rates. Not that they will put up 1gbs service. The part of the negotiation was KC wanted something from Google and they provide it. I'm sure if you were to guarantee a rollout of 1 gps service, they might cut you a break also.

But you want to sit on your hands and expect preferential treatment because it is waaaahhhh unfair, what does the people of KC get for your discount? Same crappy service?

It doesn't matter what the hell you're rolling out it isn't the place of the municipality to offer sweetheart deals to one company without offering them to the other. This is the same damn crony capitalism that resulted in monopolies in many cities in the first place.

but didn't google got sweetheart deal only because they offered a sweetheart deal themselves?

if AT-AT and TSW want the same they should offer a comparable deal. They should not get lower prices just because.

If AT&T and Time Warner had actually, really, truly any intent in the past or present to provide Google-style fiber service, they would have already done so (and I believe were actually paid to do so in the early/mid 90's). So... anytime in the last 10-15 years, anywhere in the entire country.

Tough shit. Those companies had thier turn with being granted regional monopolies, municipal incentives, kickbacks and low-to-no-contention right of way access for decades. They did nothing with it, hampered business (I had to practically pay for the backhoe and cabling to get DS-3 service to our office headquarters building in Atlanta) and have implemented caps on the rest of their domestic services to wring the last gasp out of their infrastructure by mitigating demand rather than getting with the times. So I say: Too. F@#king. Bad.

I don't agree with everything that Google does, nor do I buy that "don't be evil" crap in their post-IPO era. But the answer's clearly not to rely on the ILEC's to provide the nation's bandwidth. I'd rather have dark fiber and a choice of backhaul carriers that might be interested in competing for my dollar than the mess as it stands. Or bandwdth sold via a utility-based option like Chattanooga's

Can we stop treating google like some small underdog start up? They don't need subsidies anymore than the rest of these companies. Hell Google makes more in profit than every one of them.

Google also innovates. If AT&T did the same, you guys wouldn't be stuck with such crappy networks. Maybe milking the same old infrastructure for everything it's worth isn't a great businessplan when a competitor shows up and suddenly decides to dominate the market with superior technology.

Sounds like that's what is happening here. Ideally, the fees you pay for services go in part to cover expenses, and in part to finance future upgrades to stay current. AT&T haven't really bothered to do more upgrading then they were forced to, so now they want someone to pay for upgrades that already should have been budgeted for.

I'm hard pressed to feel sorry for AT&T. Google may not be some underdog deserving of sympathy, but at least they have several projects that try to push technological boundries like this project, Street View and the Google Car. They're doing it for profit of course, but they're also creating cool tech that no one else wanted or dared to contemplate on a large scale.

Exactly. A level playing field is exactly what they don't want (and yes, AT&T already got gov't money to hang the wire they have now - wires they'd keep, they won't install anything new)

AT&T, TWC, Comcast and company have been lobbying their butts off getting sweetheart deals, municipal fiber bans and anti-competitive terms for decades. Make no mistake KC, these people have never wanted a level playing field - they are just feeling threatened.

As soon as ATT and TWC are willing to offer customers Google's level of service and pricing, municipalities will be falling over themselves to offer Google-level accommodations.

Until then, quit'cher bitchin', as they say.

Keep in mind, they were already given money for this kind of advancement in their networks multiple times before. And each time they've taken the money and done precisely nothing even in the ballpark of what was promised.

Put up or shut up, I say. AT&T in particular has enough to bankroll a nationwide rollout by themselves. Tell you what AT&T, you actually roll the network out and then we'll reimburse you after the fact.

They want lower rates on their pole rates. Not that they will put up 1gbs service. The part of the negotiation was KC wanted something from Google and they provide it. I'm sure if you were to guarantee a rollout of 1 gps service, they might cut you a break also.

But you want to sit on your hands and expect preferential treatment because it is waaaahhhh unfair, what does the people of KC get for your discount? Same crappy service?

It doesn't matter what the hell you're rolling out it isn't the place of the municipality to offer sweetheart deals to one company without offering them to the other. This is the same damn crony capitalism that resulted in monopolies in many cities in the first place.

This is actually called the government encouraging competition and infrastructure improvement instead of the telecom status quo.

There are few companies I would rather see go bankrupt than TWC, AT&T, and Comcast. Here they are complaining about how they want a fair shot at competition, and yet they only want to compete because their oligopolies are being threatened.

how can company have monopoly there? isn't there plenty of cables already for companies to use to provide you a service?I can understand remote location but NYC?

There is a difference between plenty of _____, and plenty of _____ available.Whether it's cables, access rights such a telephone pole connection, raceway/conduit, easement access rights, whatever, it is owned by someone, usually not the city, and since internet providers are not under Title II, they have no requirement to play nice or share. So they can be spiteful and say no access, all mine, you'll never reach that customer. And since cities regulate things like telephone poles, it is just as impossible to put up your own telephone pole as it is to connect to (insert company).

What they don't like is having to actually compete. But if they have to to keep the competition down, they'll beg and whine and complain, rather than give us unrestricted, throttled access to the Internet. Hypocrites of the lowest kind.